ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 2512 of 2015

Sudhir Kumar Vishwakarma s/o Late Gaya Prasad

Vishwakarma, R/o Village Nanakganj (Jhala),

Lucknow Road, Distt. Hardoi.                             ....Appellant.

Versus

UP Power Corporation Ltd. through its

Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution

Khand-II, Distt. Hardoi.                                   …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.

Sri M.H. Khan, Advocate for appellant.

None for respondent.

Date 14.12.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Sushil Kumar,  Member- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the ld. District Consumer Forum, Hardoi in complaint case no.236 of 2004, Sudhir Kumar Vishwakarma vs. UP Power Corporation Ltd., whereby the ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant has two electric connections and is in the arrear of electric consumption bills.

          This judgment has been challenged on the ground that the ld. District Forum failed to consider the real dispute between the parties. The complainant has got only one electric connection i.e. connection no.43742 while the respondent/opposite party issued two bills to the complainant; one bill for connection no.7412745. The complainant never applied for getting second electric connection nor he completed any formality on his part nor made any payment to get the second connection. It was issued by the respondent with gross negligence and error. Book number for both the bills shown as 1028. The complainant made several personal requests to remove the defect but the respondent/opposite party ignored all the requests. Therefore, complainant filed

(2)

complaint before the ld. District Forum which was dismissed illegally and without appreciation of evidence.

We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent.

          As per allegation of the complaint, the complainant deposited the estimated amount Rs.971.00 on 1.7.1996 and received a receipt no.834840. The respondent opposite party fixed meter HC 08420. The respondent provided electric bill for Rs.7,542.00 from 31.11.1999 to 30.1.2000 and the complaint again received a bill no.7412743 for meter no.08499. the complainant made requests on many occasions to the respondent/opposite party for correction the mistake committed by the employee of the respondent/opposite party and proved this fact through affidavit that the complainant has only one connection in his name and he never deposited any amount and never performed any formality to get the second connection in the same premises of the complainant.

          Documents no.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 32 suggest the contention of the complainant/appellant that he submitted so many requests before the authorities to correct the defect but the concerned authorities never performed their duties to ascertain the truthness of the complainant. Burden lies on the respondent/opposite party to prove this fact that two electric connection were issued in the name of the complainant but the respondent/opposite party never produced any document which can prove this fact in their favour.

          The ld. District Forum in its judgment never discussed the contention of the appellant/complainant regarding so many applications submitted by him before the respondent authorities regarding correction of electric bills/electric connection number and passed a summary judgment concluding that the complainant got two electric connections. Therefore, he is bound to pay electric charges for both the electric connections.

          We consider this judgment deserves to be set aside.       

ORDER

          Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint is allowed and the respondent/opposite party is

(3)

directed not to recover any electric charges with regard to connection no.28499 bill no.7412743 without ascertaining that the consumer/complainant Sudhir Kumar Vishwakarma enjoining two electric connections. The  respondent/opposite party further directed to energise connection no.08430 within 15 days from the date of receiving the copy of the judgment and order of this Commission.

Parties to bear their own costs.

          The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

        (Vikas Saxena)                                (Sushil Kumar)

              Member                                  Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

        (Vikas Saxena)                                (Sushil Kumar)

              Member                                  Presiding Member

Jafr, PA I

Court 2